CBCA 7168

DENIED: August 14, 2023 CBCA 7168 THE GEO GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent. J. Chris Haile, Matthew D. Lewis, and John Nakoneczny of Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, counsel for Appellant. Oleta Vassilopoulos, Daniel Stovall, and Thomas Sutton, Office of General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, counsel for Respondent. Before Board Judges LESTER, VERGILIO, and GOODMAN. Opinion for the Board by Board Judge GOODMAN. Board Judge VERGILIO concurs. GOODMAN, Board Judge. Appellant, The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO), has appealed a decision of a Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) contracting officer pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. §§ 7101–7109 (2018). The appeal is decided on the written record pursuant to Board Rule 19 (48 CFR 6101.19 (2021)).1 We deny the appeal. 1 The parties have filed briefs and reply briefs. CBCA 7168 2 Background The Solicitation In June 2013, BOP issued a solicitation as part of a negotiated procurement of an indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity firm fixed-priced type contract for services to manage and operate a contractor-owned/contractor-leased correctional facility, which would house approximately 1565 to 2000 low security, adult male inmates. Appeal File, Exhibit 2 at 1.2 The solicitation originally anticipated a contract with a four-year base period, commencing April 1, 2016, and three two-year option periods. Id. at 1, 4. In November 2014, BOP issued amendment 4 to the solicitation, which revised the type of anticipated contract to a firm-fixed-price service contract with a five-year base period and five one-year option periods. It modified the solicitation to provide that the performance period of the contract “shall be effective from the [notice to proceed (NTP)] through 60 months [the five base years], with the Government’s unilateral right to exercise the five individual one-year option periods in accordance with the terms of this contract.” Exhibit 3 at 117-18, 121. Amendment 4 required offerors to submit five different prices, as follows: 1) Monthly Ramp Up Pricing (MRP)[;] 2) Monthly Operating Price (MOP) for each contract year; 3) Annual Operating Price (AOP) (AOP = MOP* 12) for each contract year; 4) Monthly Ramp Down Price (MRDP)[;] 5) 6-Month Extension Price (In Accordance with FAR 52-217-8 [(48 CFR 52-217-8)])[.] .... Monthly Ramp Up Price (MRP) – The MRP applies when the average number of inmates housed in a monthly payment period does not exceed 50% of 100% contract beds. Once the population reaches 50% plus 1 inmate during the monthly payment period, the MRP shall be considered expired for the 2 All exhibits are found in the appeal file, unless otherwise noted. CBCA 7168 3 remainder of the contract. The MOP becomes effective after the expiration of the MRP. . . . Monthly Operating Price (MOP) – The MOP will apply after the Ramp Up Period when the average number of inmates housed in a monthly payment period exceeds 50% of 100% accepted contract beds. Monthly Ramp Down Price (MRDP) – Monthly ramp down refers to a period of time when inmates are transferred from the facility due to the expiration of the contract. This period may become effective approximately three (3) months prior to the expiration of the contract. The MDRP applies when the average number of inmates housed in a monthly payment period reaches 50% of the 100% accepted contract beds. . . . 6-Month Extension Price (FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Service (NOV 1999) – This will be used in the event that the Government exercises its unilateral right to extend the term of the contract (not to exceed six months). Id. at 123-24. The application of the MRDP is the subject of the dispute in this appeal. Amendment 4 required the offeror to submit its proposed pricing on a page titled “Schedule A,” which contained three separate boxes. Exhibit 3 at 125. The first box was for the offeror’s proposed price for the base year MRP.